The December 18, 1995 cover of Time magazine asked the
question, "Is the Bible Fact or Fiction?" A sidebar to the featured
article, "Are the Bible's Stories True?", cited the following opinions (emphasis added) summarizing some of the oldest events from the Word
of God [1]:

"Was Abraham a Myth? He was the father of Judaism, the
man who was willing to kill his son Isaac just because God told him to.
But years of searching have convinced all but the most conservative
experts that Abraham, and the rest of the Patriarchs, were inventions
of the Bible's authors."

"Was There a Moses? Charlton Heston notwithstanding, many
scholars contend that Moses was a legendary hero created by the Hebrews
to instill a feeling of national identity and solidarity. Apart from the
Bible, there is no evidence that such a man ever lived."

"Did the Exodus Happen? If they really spent 40 years
wandering in the desert after fleeing Egypt, the Israelites should have
left at least a few traces. But though scientists have evidence of human
occupation in the Sinai dating to the Stone Age, nothing suggests that
the Israelites were ever there."

"Did Joshua Conquer The City of Jericho? The walls of
this Canaanite city did come tumbling down, say most historians, but
centuries before Moses' protégé could have arrived."

For the evangelical Christian who steadfastly believes the Bible to be
the Word of God such conclusions are shocking. But, aren't we also
accustomed to expecting such attitudes from the lost souls of the secular
press and academia? Or, do we accommodate their opinions without defense
(thereby supporting Relativism and the denial of absolute truth promoted
by Humanism)? Even "experts," such as Hershel Shanks, founding editor of
the influential magazine Biblical Archaeology Review stated in the
above named article, "You can't look at the text literally. It wasn't
written as modern history is written. But on the other hand, it's
certainly not made up." [2] What is Shanks really saying here? How do you
reach someone like him?

The cornerstone of the Christian faith is the Bible. Without it we
could not know anything about God or His plan for mankind. Yet, there
are myriads of real Christians who know nothing about the Bible as a
literary and historical document. They are intellectually defenseless
before a keen adversary intent on ridiculing their "subjective" beliefs.
This is especially true at any stage of evangelism, whether it is seed
planting, watering, or harvesting. Sooner or later the person you are
evangelizing will question the reliability of what you testify to what
God has said. They may verbalize it or not. But they will question the
credibility of the Bible! And they will expect you to answer their
concerns.

We could rightly blame Satan for their attitude. But doing so does
not bring you any closer to enlightening them to the truth. Rather, a
non-defense of the Bible and the historic Christian faith accomplishes
two things: it confirms their suspicion that you are unable to defend
what you believe; and, (worse) it creates a state of disobedience to what
God has commanded in 1 Peter 3:14-15 ("... And do not fear their
intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your
hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to
give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and
reverence.").

In the course of your dialogue you will ultimately refer to the Bible
and what God has divinely caused to be written in it. Usually the
unbeliever who verbalizes their distrust will view your "subjective"
faith in the Word of God with an air of incredulity. They will sincerely
begin to doubt your sanity. And, because of their mindset, they believe
that they have good reason to do so! After all, they will say, "Who can
believe in a book written thousands of years ago?"; or, "How do you know
the Bible is a duplicate of the original writings, as you claim?"
Moreover, if they value your friendship and sincerely desire to continue
to think of you as a reasonable person, they will appeal to your
objectivity, common sense and reasoning abilities with, "Surely you don't
believe that there were not some mistakes made in transcription or
translation over time."; or, "I have always known you to be an
intelligent and reasonable person. Do you really believe that such an
ancient book as your Bible remains completely unchanged today after so
many years?" I have heard these comments; so will you at some point in
time. How would you respond to the sincere, imploring voice of reason?

First, we must understand that their worldview is distinctly different
than the Biblical worldview a real Christian must cultivate. They
continue to believe in "relativism" and the right of all individuals to
be respected for their beliefs, regardless of what they are. Such a
cultural posture is the product of the complete denial of any "absolute
truths" as fostered by the philosophy of secular Humanism. However, you
also most likely had the same worldview at one time, and you also know
how they expect to be treated intellectually as well as socially. This
knowledge is a distinct advantage to the regenerated Christian. Second,
there are two defenses a Christian can employ that are acceptable to
their worldview: 1) philosophical reasoning (not recommended); and, 2) an
articulate presentation of the objective facts that verify the
reliability of the Bible as a legitimate historical document.

Philosophical reasoning is not recommended simply because few people
have been trained in the art of logical argumentation. Before you even
consider using it, you must be absolutely confident of your reasoning
skills ("Have you studied philosophy and philosophical reasoning?").
Moreover, this type of reasoning (Aristotelian Logic) has been replaced
by modern philosophical systems that support the philosophy of
Humanism. However, all people readily grasp the concepts of pure logic
if an argument it is structured and presented correctly. Nonetheless, if
you believe that you could hold your own without becoming bogged down in
circular logic, this philosophical defense requires that your opponent at
least agree to the supposition of the reality of God (do not get sidetracked with the ontological argument or any other philosophical
argument for the existence of God, just secure their cooperation to the
presupposition). An example of this argument style is as follows:

There must be a Bible.

God Himself has declared that those
who obey Him will have eternal life in heaven, and those who choose
not to obey will have eternal life in hell. Thus God has established
a standard by which He wants man to live. But, how can man know
what God's standards are unless He reveals them?

Therefore, God must provide the
"standard." His "standard" is the Bible; it must exist simply
because God holds man accountable.

The Bible must be without error.

Since God is responsible for providing
man with the "standard," by which to live, He must also assure
that it is without error for all of mankind. Will a Holy God whose
justice is pure expect man to live by His standards if His original
"standard," and subsequent transmissions of that "standard" are
corrupt? No, that would be illogical.

Therefore, the expected "standard,"
and all subsequent copies of that "standard" must also be perfect
in order for it to be effective.

The Bible must be easy to understand.

Can you imagine being given a directive
to carry out, but having that order verbalized or written in a
language that you cannot understand? How could you be expected
to obey? Furthermore, it really wouldn't make any difference if
the directive was an absolutely pure truth; if you can not understand
it, then it becomes a meaningless order. Likewise, a Bible that
is open to various interpretations is no "standard" at all; nor
would God expect man to obey such a confusing "standard." Again,
that would be illogical.

Therefore, the Bible must be readily
understood in order for God to hold man accountable. This is not
to say that man must have an intricate knowledge of all details
in the Bible, but in areas essential to daily life and the fundamental
truths of the Christian faith, the Bible must be readily understood
by all who seek its truths in their hearts.

Therefore, God has provided mankind with His standard of personal
accountability to Him: the Bible; it is without error; and, it is
comprehensible.

Such a defense can be effective for the person who prides himself
on his perceived objectivity and ability to apply logic to problem
solving. With such a person you will at the very least get him thinking
about the Bible as well as God. But a more excellent way to reason
against unbelief in the Bible as God's Word is to know and be able to
articulate the incredible facts that attest to the reliability of the
Bible as a historical document. That is the subject of this
presentation.

The heart of this matter for both Christians and others is an
assurance of the historical reliability of the Bible. Quite simply,
"Does the text of the Bible have any credibility as historic
literature?"; or, "How closely does the modern Bible follow the original
writings?" All documents of antiquity, even those modern forgeries that
claim authenticity, are subjected to a process termed historiography;
i.e., subjecting the document in question to specific tests to determine
its reliability.

The Military historian, C. Sanders lists the three basic tests of
historiography:

the bibliographical test;

the internal evidence test; and,

the external evidence test. [3]

These tests determine the historicity and credibility of any ancient
manuscript. But, beware that secular "experts" have applied these
standards of measurement unequally to the Bible. Such tests are routine
for non-Scriptural manuscripts; i.e., Caesar's "History of the Gallic
Wars", Lively's "History of Rome", or Homer's "Iliad" and "Odyssey."
However, when the Old and New Testament manuscripts are tested by the
same standards, their historiography far surpasses any other ancient
manuscript. Such evidence is overwhelming, but ignored by "experts" as
the following examples will reveal!

The Bibliographical Test

The bibliographical test is an examination of the reliability of the
copies of documents (that were transmitted from the original written document(s), known as autographs). This test answers the question,
"Because we don't have the autographs, how reliable are the manuscript
copies that we have? There are two principle factors that apply to the
bibliographical test: 1) the quantity of manuscript copies; and, 2) the
time interval between the autographs and the existing manuscript copies.

The Bibliographical Evidence of the New Testament and
Homer's "Iliad" Compared

Homer's Iliad is secular literature from ancient Greece that
has the largest number of manuscript copies (designated MSS) in existence
(excluding the New Testament). Both the Iliad and the New
Testament MSS were written in the same language (Greek). Both were
considered "Sacred" writings of their culture. Both have had been
subject to debate regarding the authenticity of the authors. Indeed, for
many years the Iliad had been considered to be authentic Greek
literature of antiquity, but unreliable in its portrayal of Greek
civilization and historical events until modern archaeology began to
substantiate many of the claims of Homer, just like the New Testament.
Let us subject both of these documents to the bibliographical test. The
author assumes the reader has familiarity with the general content of the
New Testament books and letters, but may not be familiar with Homer's Iliad.

The Iliad is major epic of Greek antiquity written in a poetic
literary style that is set in the final year of the Trojan War (c. 1200
B.C.), which forms the background for its central plot -- the story of the
wrath of the Greek hero Achilles. Homer is the name traditionally
assigned to the author of both the Iliad and Odyssey, the
two major epics of Greek antiquity. Nothing is known of Homer as an
individual, and in fact the question of whether a single person can be
said to be responsible for the creation of these two epics is highly
controversial. Linguistic and historical evidence, however, concedes a
supposition that the poems were composed in the Greek settlements on the
west coast of Asia Minor in the latter half of the 8th century B.C.
Thus, historians doubt the actual existence of an individual named
"Homer" credited as the author of the "Iliad;" but, they also presume
that the literature was indeed written by ancient Greeks in the late 8th
century B.C. Now, let us examine the bibliographical evidence of
transmission of the Iliad to the present:

Written 900 B.C.

There are 643 manuscript copies of the
Iliad.

The only preserved MS with the complete text dates to the 13th
century A.D.

The earliest MSS with a portion of the whole text dates to 400 B.C.

The timespan from the latest date written (900 B.C.) to the
earliest [partial] copy (400 B.C.) is 500 years.

Thus, Homer's Iliad, with 643 MSS in existence, having an
earliest MS copy dating only 500 years from the time of its writing is
widely accepted as a completely reliable literature or history by
scholars. In other words, there is no doubt in their minds that the
existing MSS of Iliad are indeed actual copies of an original
document that has never been located.

By comparison, let us examine the bibliographical evidence of
transmission of the New Testament to the present:

Written A.D. 40-100

There are more than 24,000 manuscript copies of the books of the
New Testament.

The earliest MSS copy dates to A.D.
125.

The timespan from the date written (A.D. 100) to the earliest
copy (A.D. 125) is 25 years.

Thus, the New Testament, with more than 24,000 MSS in existence,
having an oldest MS dating to only 25 years from the time of its original
writing is not considered as reliable literature or history by scholars!

Textual Comparison of the New Testament and Homer's
Iliad

Textual comparison between copies of ancient MSS generally reveals
variations in the actual text between one copy and another. These
variations may be differences in spelling, punctuation, grammar, or
differences in the actual content of the text itself. Most variants of
ancient MSS reveal differences in spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
Obviously, the greater the number of copies in existence proportionately
increases the statistical probability of differences between them. But a
word of caution must be observed to understand what the word 'variant'
truly means when applied to textual comparisons of documents of
antiquity. In their text, When Skeptics Ask, the authors, Norman
L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, point out "It is easy for someone to
leave the wrong impression by saying that there are 200,000 'errors' that
have crept into the Bible when the word should be 'variants.' A variant
is counted any time one copy is different from any other copy and it is
counted again in every copy where it appears. So when a single word is
spelled differently in 3,000 copies, that is counted as 3,000 variants.
In fact, there are only 10,000 places where variants occur [in the New
Testament] and most of those are matters of spelling and word
order. There are less than 40 places in the New Testament where we
are really not certain which reading is original, but not one of these
has any effect on a central doctrine of the faith. Note: the problem
is not that we don't know what the text is, but that we are not
certain which text has the right reading. We have 100 percent of the New
Testament and we are sure about 99.5 percent of it." [emphasis added] [4]

The Iliad and the New Testament are both good books to
compare. Just as the New Testament is Sacred to Christians, the Iliad was "Sacred" to the ancient Greeks, and both books were written in
Greek. Both texts underwent textual changes and criticism of their Greek
manuscripts. However, a scholarly examination of textual variants among
all extant MSS reveals 764 lines of the Iliad in question, with
only 40 lines (400 words total) of the New Testament are in doubt. Thus,
the total textual corruption of the Iliad is 5.0% as compared to
only 0.5% for the New Testament! And yet, in light of these facts,
"scholars" still doubt the historical reliability of the New Testament! [5]

There is yet another very strong bibliographic support for the
accuracy of the New Testament in its large numbers of translations into
other languages besides Greek. This fact is unusual since ancient
literature was rarely translated into another language. However,
Christianity is a missionary faith and has been from its inception in the
1st century A.D. The earliest versions of the New Testament were
prepared by missionaries for use among peoples whose native language was Syriac, Latin, or Coptic. These translations were prepared around A.D.
150 (once again a very close time interval to the original autographs)
and currently number more than 15,000 existing MSS.

The Internal Evidence Test for the Reliability of the
New Testament

The bibliographical test determines only if a MSS transmits what was
originally written in the autograph(s). The task still remains to
determine the extent of credibility of that written record. This is the
matter of internal criticism.

Literary critics apply Aristotle's dictum in all such cases of
internal criticisms: "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the
document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." [6] As John
W. Montgomery summarizes: "One must listen to the claims of the document
under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author
disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies." [7]
In other words, the ability of the writer or witness to tell the truth is
essential to determine credibility. Likewise, the proximity of the
writer or witness both geographically and chronologically to the events
recorded is also crucial to determining the reliability of the written
record.

In the case of the New Testament, which essentially records the
accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, the writers of the
various books and epistles were either eyewitnesses themselves, or they
recorded the accounts of eyewitnesses to the actual events or teachings
of Jesus. Moreover, there is a closeness in the recorded accounts of the
writers of the gospels that is extremely effective in certifying the
accuracy of what is recorded. But a historian must also deal with an
eyewitness who consciously or unconsciously relates falsehoods regardless
of their nearness to the event or their competency to tell the truth. In
response to this concern of historians, the internal evidence of the New
Testament reveals that the accounts of Jesus' life and teaching were
circulated within the lifetimes of people who were witnesses to such.
Certainly, they could confirm or deny the accuracy of any of the
circulated accounts. As further attestation to the veracity of what was
recorded, the writers recorded how the Apostles appealed to the common
knowledge concerning Jesus:

Luke records Peter's second sermon to the men gathered for worship in
the Temple: "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a
man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God
performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know."
(Acts 2:22)

Luke also records Paul's testimony before King Agrippa: "And while
Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, 'Paul,
you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad.' But
Paul said, 'I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter
words of sober truth. For the king knows about these matters, and I
speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of
these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a
corner." (Acts 26:24Ð26)

In both of these instances a record of what was said to people hostile
to Christianity is recorded. If the record was not factual, those same
people who were hostile witnesses would have vigorously challenged the
circulated record.

This matter of internal evidence and criticism is the primary reason
the Gnostic Gospels of the Pseduopigrapha were never accepted as
canonical. External evidence reveals that the authors of such false
records falsified their true identity, perhaps in an effort to achieve
public recognition of their authority to proclaim what in reality was a
false gospel. Likewise, a cursory textual criticism and internal
evidence examination of the Gospel of Thomas account of the child Jesus
(see Supplement 01: An Overview of the Bible, p. 5) reveals a
Jesus of a completely different character and nature than that portrayed
consistently in the New Testament text. However, they do supply some
degree of the external evidence necessary for the third test of
historiography that will be examined next.

In summation of internal evidence, historian Will Durant attests to
the historical authenticity of the New Testament: "Despite the prejudices
and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many
incidents that mere inventors would have concealed -- the competition of
the apostles for high places in the kingdom, their flight after Jesus'
arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in
Galilee, the references of some auditors to His possible insanity, His
early uncertainty as to His mission, His confessions of ignorance as to
the future, His moments of bitterness, His despairing cry on the cross;
no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind
them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so
powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring
a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible
than any recorded in the gospels. After two centuries of higher
criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ
remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in
the history of Western man." [8]

The External Evidence Test for the Reliability of the
New Testament

External evidence is the third test of historicity of ancient MSS.
This test subjects the document in question to any supporting external
historical materials that would confirm or deny the internal testimony of
the document itself. "Conformity or agreement with other known
historical or scientific facts is often the decisive test of evidence,
whether of one or more witnesses." [9] As you might expect, the New
Testament has such a wealth of external attestation that it staggers the
imagination.

Only one quote here is necessary to anchor this evidence. It is from
the historian Eusebius who preserved the writings of Papias, bishop of
Hierapolis (A.D. 30): "The Elder [apostle John] used to say this also:
'Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all
that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not,
however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the
Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his
teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making compilation
of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down
in this way some things as he mentioned them; for he paid attention to
this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include
any false statement among them." [10]

The external attestation of the New Testament is so complete that if
every copy of the New Testament were lost (including all modern Bibles),
the complete document could be assembled solely from various quotations
of it in the writings of the early Church Fathers and others. That
degree of external evidence is simply amazing! Dr. Clark H. Pinnock
effectively summarizes this fact: "There exists no document from the
ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical
testimonies and offering so superb an array of historical data on which
an intelligent decision may be made. An honest [person] cannot dismiss a
source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of
Christianity is based upon an irrational [i.e., anti-supernatural]
bias." [11]

And yet, as we have seen, many people including scholars and experts
continue to disregard the factual historicity of the New Testament. As
for Christians who are not convinced of the reliability of the Bible as
the whole Word of God, they especially need to ... be self-controlled and
alert because their enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion
looking for someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8).

Thus far, a cursory examination of the historiography of the New
Testament has been presented. But how do the Old Testament MSS compare?
After all, both the Old and the New Testaments comprise the Bible as a
whole. Before examining the reliability of the Old Testament, the reader
needs to remember that the credibility of the New Testament is
established beyond all reasonable doubt. And, Jesus referred repeatedly
to the Old Testament Scripture -- both in quoting Scripture as well as
attesting to its reliability and canonicity. At best, such consideration
must contribute to the external evidence for the reliability of the Old
Testament. With all due respect to such rigorous objectivity the
Christian also needs to carefully consider what the Lord has said about
Hebrew Scripture.

The Reliability of the Old Testament

The Old Testament does not have the wealth of MSS evidence as the New
Testament; however, once the facts of the extreme caution exercised by
the Jews in transcription are brought to light, one will readily see the
uniqueness of this Scripture in its reliability.

Following the council of Jamnia in A.D. 70 the canon of Hebrew
Scripture was formally established and efforts were taken to duplicate
copies of the Scripture for use by the widely scattered Jews. During the
period A.D. 100-500 Hebrew civil and canonical law was cataloged by a
group of Hebrews known as the Talmudists. They had an extremely
intricate system of transcribing synagogue scrolls that approaches
fanaticism. Indeed, a Christian begins to glimpse the zealous attention
to minute detail that characterized the Hebrew religious system condemned
by Jesus. To wit:

A synagogue scroll must be written on the skins of clean
animals, that were

Prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew;

The skins must be fastened together with the strings taken from
clean animals;

Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal
throughout the entire codex.

The length of each column must not extend over less than 48 or
more than 60 lines; and, the breadth must consist of thirty letters;

The whole copy must be first lined; and if three words be written
without a line, it is worthless;

The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other color,
and be prepared according to a definite recipe;

An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the
transcriber ought not in the least deviate;

No word or letter, not even a
yod, must be written from memory,
the scribe not having looked at the codex before him;

Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene;

Between every new parashah, or section, the breadth of nine
consonants;

Between every book, three lines;

The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but
the rest need not do so;

Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress;

Wash his whole body;

Not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink;

And should a king address him while writing that name, he must
take no notice of him.

Any scroll in which the above regulations were not strictly observed
was condemned to be buried in the ground or burned; or they were banished
to the schools, to be used as reading books. Once a scroll was
transcribed, the Talmudists were so convinced that it was an exact
duplicate of the codex they copied from, they gave the new copy equal
authority. Thus, when one considers the rigid rules and phenomenal
accuracy of the Talmudic copyists in preparing a new scroll we begin to
understand the absence of numerous ancient Old Testament MSS, and one
must also be convinced of the reliability of the extant copies.

Following the Talmudists was the Massoretic Period between A.D.
500Ð900. Not sufficiently comfortable with the rigid Talmudic rules for
transcribing Scripture, the Massoretes devised an incredibly complex
system of safeguards against mistakes in transcription. Sir Fredric
Kenyon says, "Besides recording varieties of reading, tradition, or
conjecture, the Massoretes undertook a number of calculations which do
not enter into the ordinary sphere of textual criticism. They numbered
the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle
word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated verses which
contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them;
and so on. These trivialities, as we may rightly consider them, had yet
the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of
the text; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for
the sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The
Massoretes were indeed anxious than not one jot nor tittle, not one
smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter of the Law should pass away
or be lost." [12] Indeed, for many years the oldest MSS of the Old
Testament was a Massoretic copy dated to A.D. 916.

With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 the bibliographic
evidence of the Old Testament received even more support. Prior to that
discovery, the oldest Hebrew Old Testament MSS was dated to A.D. 916.
That left a time interval of more than 1,300 years since the completion
of the last book of Hebrew Scripture around 400 B.C. That fact cast
serious doubts on the bibliographical reliability of the Hebrew Bible
since it was no closer to the date of its autographs than many secular
ancient MSS. Adding the weight of New Testament MSS that were dated so
closely to the original autographs, there was real concern regarding the
historicity of the Hebrew Scriptures. This is one the reason for the
significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Yet, from the archaeological record and the dating of Dead Sea Scroll
MSS the Old Testament reliability is phenomenal. One of the scrolls
discovered was a complete MS of the Hebrew text of Isaiah; it is dated at
125 B.C. by paleographers. Its internal evidence is such that since
this single book is more than 1,000 years older than the previously
extant MS it is incredible that there was only one word of three letters
in question! Furthermore, as F. F. Bruce writes, "An incomplete scroll
of Isaiah, found along with the other in the first Qumran cave, and
conveniently distinguished as 'Isaiah B,' agrees even more closely with
the A.D. 916 Massoretic text." [13] External support for the Old Testament
continues to be unearthed in archeological finds of ancient libraries and
other MSS.